uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] An UoM Ontology based on UCUM v1.6

To: uom-ontology-std <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: David Leal <david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:24:13 +0100
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.20090724172413.02e7efa0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Gunther,    (01)

The terms of use of the UCUM given on its web-page prevent discussion of its
technical content for the purpose of developing another standard. The
purpose of this forum is the development of another standard.    (02)

You say:
>There should be debates on content. Then, if that debate on content
>brings forth a motivation, there will be an agreement on the 
>legalese. But there will not be a debate on UCUM's legalese here.    (03)

Are you giving us permission to discuss the technical content in this forum?
It is something that I would like to do.    (04)

Best regards,
David    (05)

At 09:36 24/07/2009 -0400, you wrote:
>I doubt neither you nor I have misunderstood anything. I find 
>a discussion on whether the terms are "dictatorial" or not, and
>"unnecessary" or not entirely out of scope of a discussion that
>should be or need to be had here. 
>
>The debate should be altogether technical.
>
>The question is not "if is UCUM is to be a kind of ingredient in 
>the brew ahead", but in which *additional* brew ahead.
>
>And I am sure the majority of brewers brewing this brew here like 
>to focus on content. 
>
>There should be debates on content. Then, if that debate on content
>brings forth a motivation, there will be an agreement on the 
>legalese. But there will not be a debate on UCUM's legalese here.
>
>regards,
>-Gunther
>
>Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
>> Oh dear!  May I assure you, Gunther, that my expression of astonishment
("Wow!")
>> followed by a direct quote and two questions was not meant as a rant?  I am
>> sorry that you have taken it as one.  A stimulus? - yes!
>> 
>> Perhaps you could start by telling us where I might have misinterpreted
the T&C
>> as they appear, or how they might be read or applied differently?  They
do come
>> across to me as unrealistically dictatorial, despite their understandable
best
>> of intentions.
>> 
>> Certainly, if UCUM is to be a kind of ingredient in the brew ahead, there
should
>> be a debate on the matter, or at least some clarification of what they really
>> mean.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Christopher
>
>
> 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/  
>Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>Config/Unsubscribe:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/  
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/  
>Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
> 
>
>    (06)

============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel:      +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob:      +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail:   david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================    (07)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/  
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/  
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>